TV Licensing [Removed]

Spoonbill33

The refund you think you are due,around £20,not so. When you initially set up your D.D.,they force you to pay double the actual amount,around £24 p.c.m.for the first 6months. Now guess what happens next? They carry on taking more money at the true monthly rate,around £12 p.c.m.,so that when expiry time comes round again,you've paid for 1.5 licences. They did this to me,I received a cheque for the 2months they had stolen 2days later. I have also recovered £72 from them for my brother,for whom I act as L.P.A.

Uxb

Anthorn wrote: »

Additionally what matters is that you have the capability to watch TV and not whether you actually watch it. Also since the comparatively recent requirement to have a TV License to access BBC iPlayer owning a computer and having internet access or a mobile phone with data access is enough to require a TV License.

Can I ask why you post this total rubbish?
I do not own a TV and do not watch any form of TV broadcasts or via iplayer- I have frankly more interesting things to do with my life.
This has been the situation for the last 18 years
I get the monthly snoto-gram/letter from TVL which goes in the bin: yes that is just over pointless 215 letters I've received.

I do however possess various computers tablets and phones.
Mere ownership of these devices does not require me to purchase a TV licence
Do you understand?

silverwhistle

I'm afraid he doesn't, although perhaps the weight of numbers of posts and their detail is beginning to get through.


How many of those 'Are you in on the nth?' type letters have you had? Just the three for me and no sign of a visit. Designed to be somewhat menacing and could be construed as harassment, if I was really bothered about the whole thing. I maintain an amused interest though.

Cornucopia

I think it's fair to say that there are genuine misconceptions amongst the general public about the TV Licence. I don't know if the BBC has ever surveyed the public to find out about levels of understanding (but I've not seen anything).

Add to that feelings about the degree to which the BBC is or isn't under threat, and severe misunderstandings about the degree to which law-abiding members of the public ought to be subject to official scrutiny (which are shared by the BBC), and there's a ready source of misinformation both innocent and malign.

There's a further issue for social media of people who themselves are misinformed giving bad information to others who are seeking advice. It's not a problem that is unique to MSE by any means, although given the purpose of MSE, it's a shame when our function sub-forums are disrupted by it.

Uxb

silverwhistle wrote: »

How many of those 'Are you in on the nth?' type letters have you had? Just the three for me and no sign of a visit. Designed to be somewhat menacing and could be construed as harassment, if I was really bothered about the whole thing. I maintain an amused interest though.

The letters go in cycles getting to a cresendo and then they start again
Those letter types you mention are seemingly a new invention in the sequence in the last couple of years.
I live in rural area so have only had one visit in 18 years with a note being stuffed though the letterbox - surprise surprise I was out at work as one is during the day!
Like you I also maintain an amused interest in what this next month will bring from TVL addressed to "The legal occupier"

Anthorn

silverwhistle wrote: »

Oh gawd.

In the past I have taught English, with infinite patience, to kids with dyslexia. I admire the infinite patience with which Cornucopia responds, in detail, to misleading posters on here. A word also for ValiantSon in their attempts to convey accurate information.

I am getting older and less patient, so when I read this

I just despair and give up and realise that the democratisation of internet forums from when I first started in the early 90s has not been a universally positive step.

But "I have already demonstrated exhaustively my position which is based on common knowledge." In fact so much so that the only way I can continue is to repeat myself.

Your post confuses me though. Is it that you want everyone to agree with everyone else. In that case what is there to discuss and debate? What we see in this thread and most other thread on this forum and most other forums is opinion. However opinions don't make facts and should never be regarded as such!

Cornucopia

There's really not much point going over and over this. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it. Your position is particularly problematic because of your refusal to consult the official references that have been provided that incontrovertibly prove that you are wrong.

The place for opinion-based discussion is when a forum member asks for people's opinions, when their factual question does not have a simple factual answer or when their question hints at potential issues down the line. This isn't that, though - there is no dispute over what a Licence covers, and it should be common knowledge for every UK adult, since we are all bound by the requirements.

Anthorn

Cornucopia wrote: »

There's really not much point going over and over this. You're wrong, and that's all there is to it. Your position is particularly problematic because of your refusal to consult the official references that have been provided that incontrovertibly prove that you are wrong.

The place for opinion-based discussion is when a forum member asks for people's opinions, when their factual question does not have a simple factual answer or when their question hints at potential issues down the line. This isn't that, though - there is no dispute over what a Licence covers, and it should be common knowledge for every UK adult, since we are all bound by the requirements.

So therefore all those posting in this thread (except admittedly myself) must be qualified and practicing solicitors and barristers. That's not the case. What we find in this thread is opinion. Or conversely what we find in this thread is not authoritative.

Instead let's consider the incidence of prosecutions:

Findings suggest out of the 180,000 people taken to court each year for non-payment the probe suggests 60,000 of them are taken to court without need.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/863453/BBC-fee-court-licence-Capita-BBC

The inescapable fact is as I have stated it throughout this thread: Where there is evidence of installation of tv receiving equipment but no evidence that it is being used TV Licensing prefer to prosecute!.

I ask again: Are those who are inciting people to not have a tv license going to pay the fine or in the event of non-payment serve the time? Or are they even going to pay the legal fees of those who followed the advice in good faith? I think not.

I rest my case.,

Nick_C

Anthorn wrote: »

Is it that you want everyone to agree with everyone else.

On questions of fact, yes.

The divide here is between those who know what they are taking about and those who don't.

Cornucopia

Anthorn wrote: »

So therefore all those posting in this thread (except admittedly myself) must be qualified and practicing solicitors and barristers. That's not the case.

That's somewhat flawed logic. We all have to observe the law, and part of that is having a reasonable understanding of what the law is in a particular situation. Legislation is often difficult for laypeople to read and understand, so often a relevant official body (or a professional commentator like MSE) will summarise the law for our benefit. It is a reasonable expectation that such a summary will not unduly detract from the original legal definition.

In other words, when TV Licensing state that a Licence covers viewing TV broadcasts and iPlayer, most people would believe that to be a true and accurate statement. Certainly anyone being taken to Court for a TV Licensing offence that was defined in a different way would rightly have cause for complaint (and a potential defence).

What we find in this thread is opinion. Or conversely what we find in this thread is not authoritative.

Not quite. What individual posters might post is opinion. But official references are fact (or as good as, in this context). And there are several such references in this thread. I presume you know this, having referenced the not terribly helpful wording from the back of a TV Licence in your previous post.

Instead let's consider the incidence of prosecutions:

I don't see the relevance. If you don't know what they were charged with and what evidence was used, then you don't know. Do you know?

I ask again: Are those who are inciting people to not have a tv license going to pay the fine or in the event of non-payment serve the time? Or are they even going to pay the legal fees of those who followed the advice in good faith? I think not.

The advice isn't wrong, so there is no issue. But in any case, we're all adults (I assume), so it should be pretty obvious that anyone finding themselves being prosecuted by TVL or HMRC or DVLA or whoever because they took random advice from random people on the internet has been a bit foolish.

This advice is not random, though, nor is it the unsupported work of any individual poster. What it is is an official summary of the law provided by the Government and TV Licensing.

Just to remind you of the wording (from the Government website):-

You must have a TV Licence if you:

- watch or record programmes on a TV, computer or other device as they're broadcast

- download or watch BBC programmes on iPlayer - live, catch up or on demand


You don't need a TV Licence to watch:

- non-BBC programmes on online catch-up services
- videos or DVDs
- clips on websites like YouTube
- closed circuit television (CCTV)

(They forgot video games).

https://www.gov.uk/tv-licence

I can't see anything remotely difficult to understand there, and I really don't understand why you are still quibbling about it.

So your first, and somewhat insurmountable task is to explain how and why the Government advice is so comprehensively "wrong" (according to you).